Re: Senate Bill 1043

[John, Jacobus]

If you review the bill, the issue is really about

security of radioactive material and facilities.  That

is why it is called "The Nuclear Infrastructure

Security Act of 2003." .  My understanding is that the

NRC is aware of this legislation, but does not want to

take on any more responsibilities.  



Would you want to be designed agency to ensure

protection of radioactive material (a duty you did not

ask for and do not have the resources to support), and

then have a terrorist attack?  Neither would the NRC.



--- Jim Hardeman <Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us> wrote:

> Clayton, et al. ¯

> 

> Just wanted to make sure that you (and everybody

> else) were aware that this bill only talks about

> MATERIALS ... although it does include discrete NORM

> sources and ARM under NRC's control (if passed) ...

> but it doesn't address machine-produced radiation,

> such as X-ray.

> 

> This bill, however, would significantly expand the

> reach of NRC, which (depending on your point of

> view) may or may not be a good thing. My agency

> (fortunately) only deals w/ materials at this time,

> so we don't really have to worry about which (if

> any) federal agency is going to regulate machine

> produced radiation ... yet.

> 

> You might want to make sure that your EP types have

> seen this document ... I'm sure THEY will be

> interested.

> 

> Jim Hardeman

> Jim_Hardeman@dnr.state.ga.us

> 

> >>> "Bradt, Clayton"

> <Clayton.Bradt@LABOR.STATE.NY.US> 7/11/2003 8:50:14

> >>>

> I haven't read this latest avatar , but the idea of

> bringing all radioactive

> material and machine produced radiation under NRC

> jurisdiction has enjoyed a

> growth in popularity recently.  I have had this

> conversation before with

> Barbara and others in the state radiation control

> community, and it seems I

> am in the minority on this issue (as on most

> others).  I think that

> expanding the reach of the Atomic Energy Act (AEA)

> to include other (all?)

> sources of radiation is a terrible idea - for

> constitutional reasons.  

> 

> The protection of public health and safety is a

> State function falling

> within the police powers reserved to the States

> under the Tenth Amendment.

> Congress has been granted no express power in this

> arena and therefore has

> at most a supporting role to play.   The AEA was

> originally framed with this

> construction in mind.  It reserves to the federal

> govt all aspects of

> radiation regulation related to the common defense

> and security - an express

> power of congress, and devolves to the States those

> aspects which only

> pertain to public health and safety.  Only when

> viewed from this perspective

> do the definitions of by-product, source and special

> nuclear material, and

> the respective roles of the States and the federal

> govt in their regulation,

> as set out in the AEA, make any sense.  

> 

> The further erosion of State sovereignty, and the

> resulting confusion in

> lines of authority within our federal system, should

> be avoided.

> Furthermore, there is no compelling need for federal

> involvement in

> radiation regulation except as it pertains to

> national security. 

> 

> It is argued that the feds already are involved in

> public health matters

> which are outside Congress' express powers, such as

> is the case with FDA

> regulation of machine radiation sources and EPA

> regulation of NORM- so why

> not expand NRC's jurisdiction?  This is the analog

> of the argument " I've

> already had my right arm cut off, why not the left

> as well"?  I don't find

> it convincing.

> 

> Clayton J. Bradt, CHP

> Principal Radiophysicist

> NYS Dept. of Labor

> Radiological Health Unit

> voice: (518) 457-1202

> fax:    (518) 485-7406

> e-mail: usccjb@labor.state.ny.us

> 

>

************************************************************************

> You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing

> list. To unsubscribe,

> send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put

> the text "unsubscribe

> radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail,

> with no subject line.

> You can view the Radsafe archives at

> http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/

> 





=====

-- John

John Jacobus, MS

Certified Health Physicist

e-mail:  crispy_bird@yahoo.com



__________________________________

Do you Yahoo!?

SBC Yahoo! DSL - Now only $29.95 per month!

http://sbc.yahoo.com

************************************************************************

You are currently subscribed to the Radsafe mailing list. To unsubscribe,

send an e-mail to Majordomo@list.vanderbilt.edu  Put the text "unsubscribe

radsafe" (no quote marks) in the body of the e-mail, with no subject line.

You can view the Radsafe archives at http://www.vanderbilt.edu/radsafe/